skip to main content
research-article

easIE: Easy-to-Use Information Extraction for Constructing CSR Databases From the Web

Published:24 April 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Public awareness of and concerns about companies’ social and environmental impacts have seen a marked increase over recent decades. In parallel, the quantity of relevant information has increased, as states pass laws requiring certain forms of reporting, researchers investigate companies’ performance, and companies themselves seek to gain a competitive advantage by being seen to operate fairly and transparently. However, this information is typically dispersed and non-standardized, making it complicated to collect and analyze. To address this challenge, the WikiRate platform aims to collect this information and store it in a standardized format within a centralized public repository, making it much more amenable to analysis. In the context of WikiRate, this article introduces easIE, an easy-to-use information extraction (IE) framework that leverages general Web IE principles for building datasets with environmental, social, and governance information from the Web. To demonstrate the flexibility and value of easIE, we built a large-scale corporate social responsibility database comprising 654,491 metrics related to 49,009 companies spending less than 16 hours for data engineering, collection, and indexing. Finally, a data collection exercise involving 12 subjects was performed to showcase the ease of use of the developed framework.

References

  1. Avshalom Madhala Adam and Tal Shavit. 2008. How can a ratings-based method for assessing corporate social responsibility (CSR) provide an incentive to firms excluded from socially responsible investment indices to invest in CSR? Journal of Business Ethics 82, 4, 899--905.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Tobias Anton. 2005. XPath-wrapper induction by generalizing tree traversal patterns. In Proceedings of Lernen, Wissensentdeckung and Adaptivitt (LWA’05). 126--133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmed Belkaoui and Philip G. Karpik. 1989. Determinants of the corporate decision to disclose social information. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 2, 1, 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. J. H. Bragdon Jr. and J. A. Marlin. 1972. ls pollution profitable? Risk Management 19, 9--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Peter J. Carrington, John Scott, and Stanley Wasserman. 2005. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis. Vol. 28. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Danny Coward and Yutaka Yoshida. 2003. Java Servlet Specification Version 2.3. Sun Microsystems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Valter Crescenzi, Giansalvatore Mecca, and Paolo Merialdo. 2001. RoadRunner: Towards automatic data extraction from large Web sites. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB’01), Vol. 1. 109--118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Nilesh Dalvi, Ravi Kumar, and Mohamed Soliman. 2011. Automatic wrappers for large scale Web extraction. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 4, 4, 219--230. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Islam Elshahat, Clark Wheatley, and Ahmed Elshahat. 2015. Is pollution profitable? A cross-sectional study. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal 19, 2, 59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Emilio Ferrara, Pasquale De Meo, Giacomo Fiumara, and Robert Baumgartner. 2014. Web data extraction, applications and techniques: A survey. Knowledge-Based Systems 70, 301--323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Andy Field. 2013. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Anna Lisa Gentile, Ziqi Zhang, Isabelle Augenstein, and Fabio Ciravegna. 2013. Unsupervised wrapper induction using linked data. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Knowledge Capture. ACM, New York, NY, 41--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Vasiliki Gkatziaki, Symeon Papadopoulos, Sotiris Diplaris, and Yiannis Kompatsiaris. 2017. Large-scale open corporate data collection and analysis as an enabler of corporate social responsibility research. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet Science.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Chun-Nan Hsu and Ming-Tzung Dung. 1998. Generating finite-state transducers for semi-structured data extraction from the Web. Information Systems 23, 8, 521--538. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Kei Kanaoka, Yotaro Fujii, and Motomichi Toyama. 2014. Ducky: A data extraction system for various structured Web documents. In Proceedings of the 18th International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium. ACM, New York, NY, 342--347. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Nicholas Kushmerick. 1997. Wrapper Induction for Information Extraction. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Washington. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Legislation.gov.uk. 2015. Modern Slavery Act 2015. Retrieved March 15, 2018, from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/section/54/enacted.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Wei Liu, Xiaofeng Meng, and Weiyi Meng. 2010. Vide: A vision-based approach for deep Web data extraction. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 22, 3, 447--460. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Joshua D. Margolis, Hillary Anger Elfenbein, and James P. Walsh. 2007. Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Ann Arbor 1001, 48109--1234.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jean B. McGuire, Alison Sundgren, and Thomas Schneeweis. 1988. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 31, 4, 854--872.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Richard Mills, Stefano De Paoli, Sotiris Diplaris, Vasiliki Gkatziaki, Symeon Papadopoulos, Srivigneshwar R. Prasad, Ethan McCutchen, Vishal Kapadia, and Philipp Hirche. 2016. WikiRate.org—leveraging collective awareness to understand companies’ environmental, social and governance performance. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet Science. 74--88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Ion Muslea, Steve Minton, and Craig Knoblock. 1998. Stalker: Learning extraction rules for semistructured, Web-based information sources. In Proceedings of the AAAI-98 Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Information Integration. 74--81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Symeon Papadopoulos, Yiannis Kompatsiaris, Athena Vakali, and Ploutarchos Spyridonos. 2012. Community detection in social media. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 24, 3, 515--554. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ashok Prasad. 2014. India’s new CSR law sparks debate among NGOs and businesses. Retrieved March 15, 2018, from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/india-csr-law-debate-business-ngo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. M. Purushothaman, G. Tower, R. Hancock, and R. Taplin. 2000. Determinants of corporate social reporting practices of listed Singapore companies. Pacific Accounting Review 12, 2, 101--133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Steven Scalet and Thomas F. Kelly. 2010. CSR rating agencies: What is their global impact? Journal of Business Ethics 94, 1, 69--88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. SEC. 2014. Fact Sheet: Disclosing the Use of Conflict Minerals. Retrieved March 15, 2018, from https://www.sec.gov/News/Article/Detail/Article/1365171562058.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Peter A. Stanwick and Sarah D. Stanwick. 1998. The relationship between corporate social performance, and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics 17, 2, 195--204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Ambec Stefan and Lanoie Paul. 2008. Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. Academy of Management Perspectives 22, 4, 45--62.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Wendy L. Tate, Lisa M. Ellram, and Jon F. Kirchoff. 2010. Corporate social responsibility reports: A thematic analysis related to supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46, 1, 19--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Ken T. Trotman and Graham W. Bradley. 1981. Associations between social responsibility disclosure and characteristics of companies. Accounting, Organizations and Society 6, 4, 355--362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Lilian Soares Outtes Wanderley, Rafael Lucian, Francisca Farache, and José Milton de Sousa Filho. 2008. CSR information disclosure on the Web: A context-based approach analysing the influence of country of origin and industry sector. Journal of Business Ethics 82, 2, 369--378.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Jiying Wang and Fred H. Lochovsky. 2003. Data extraction and label assignment for Web databases. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, New York, NY, 187--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Aries Widiarto Sutantoputra. 2009. Social disclosure rating system for assessing firms’ CSR reports. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 14, 1, 34--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Tak-Lam Wong and Wai Lam. 2010. Learning to adapt Web information extraction knowledge and discovering new attributes via a Bayesian approach. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 22, 4, 523--536. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. easIE: Easy-to-Use Information Extraction for Constructing CSR Databases From the Web

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
          ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 18, Issue 4
          Special Issue on Computational Ethics and Accountability, Special Issue on Economics of Security and Privacy and Regular Papers
          November 2018
          348 pages
          ISSN:1533-5399
          EISSN:1557-6051
          DOI:10.1145/3210373
          • Editor:
          • Munindar P. Singh
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 24 April 2018
          • Accepted: 1 October 2017
          • Revised: 1 September 2017
          • Received: 1 December 2016
          Published in toit Volume 18, Issue 4

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader